Litigation and Related Matters	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Related Matters	NOTE 18. LITIGATION AND RELATED MATTERS ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Environmental Compliance Our manufacturing and research facilities are affected by various federal, state and local requirements relating to the discharge of materials and the protection of the environment. We make expenditures necessary for compliance with applicable environmental requirements at each of our operating facilities. These regulatory requirements continually change, therefore we cannot predict with certainty future expenditures associated with compliance with environmental requirements. Environmental Sites Summary We are actively involved in the investigation, closure and/or remediation of existing or potential environmental contamination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and state Superfund and similar environmental laws at several domestically owned, formerly owned and non-owned locations allegedly resulting from past industrial activity. In a few cases, we are one of several potentially responsible parties and have agreed to jointly fund the required investigation and remediation, while preserving our defenses to the liability. We may also have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. We are currently pursuing coverage and recoveries under those policies with respect to certain of the sites, including the St. Helens, OR site, the Macon, GA site and the Elizabeth City, NC site, each of which is summarized below. These efforts include two active and independent litigation matters against legacy primary and excess policy insurance carriers for recovery of fees and costs incurred by us in connection with our investigation and remediation activities for such sites. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the timing of any recoveries, whether through settlement or otherwise. We are also unable to predict the extent to which any recoveries might cover our final share of investigation and remediation costs for these sites. Our final share of investigation and remediation costs may exceed any such recoveries, and such amounts net of insurance recoveries may be material. We currently anticipate that we may enter into settlement agreements in 2017 with several, but not all, insurers and obtain partial reimbursement for legacy environmental site expenses. Estimates of our future liability at the environmental sites are based on evaluations of currently available facts regarding each individual site. We consider factors such as our activities associated with the site, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations and prior company experience in remediating contaminated sites. Although current law imposes joint and several liability on all parties at Superfund sites, our contribution to the remediation of these sites is expected to be limited by the number of other companies potentially liable for site remediation. As a result, our estimated liability reflects only our expected share. In determining the probability of contribution, we consider the solvency of other parties, the site activities of other parties, whether liability is being disputed, the terms of any existing agreements and experience with similar matters, and the effect of our October 2006 Chapter 11 reorganization upon the validity of the claim. Specific Material Events St Helens, OR In August 2010, we entered into a Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (“ODEQ”), along with Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (“Kaiser”), and Owens Corning Sales LLC (“OC”), with respect to our St. Helens, OR facility, which was previously owned by Kaiser and then OC. The Consent Order requires that we and Kaiser complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”) on the portion of the site owned by us (“Owned Property”), which is comprised of Upland and Lowland areas. The Consent Order further requires us, Kaiser and OC to conduct an RI/FS in the In-Water area of the adjacent Scappoose Bay. Costs and responsibilities for investigation, including the current RI/FS, for the Owned Property have been shared with Kaiser pursuant to a cost sharing agreement with Kaiser. Costs and responsibilities for the investigation with respect to the in-water areas that we do not own have been shared with Kaiser and OC pursuant to a cost sharing agreement with Kaiser and OC. On September 14, 2016, the parties submitted a Feasibility Study to the ODEQ proposing remedial action options for the Upland area. We have participated in the investigation phase for the Lowland area of the Owned Property and the Scappoose Bay and have been working with the ODEQ, Kaiser and OC to finalize the reports to move to the Feasibility Study phase. We have determined that it is probable that remedial action for certain portions of the Lowland area of the Owned Property will be required. The current estimate of our future liability at the site includes any remaining known investigation work required by the Consent Order and the current projected cost of remedial actions in the Upland area. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate any remediation costs that we may ultimately incur with respect to the Lowland portion of the Owned Property or the Scappoose Bay or whether the projected costs for the areas we have included in our current estimate will increase. Additional investigative or remedial action required by the ODEQ could result in additional costs greater than the amounts currently estimated. As discussed above, we are currently unable to predict the outcome or the timing of our insurance recovery proceedings. Accordingly, additional estimated costs for this matter may be incurred without regard for, and prior to, the resolution of our insurance recovery proceedings. On September 30, 2016, Kaiser filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Case No. 16-31602). AWI, OC and the ODEQ have all been included on the master list of potential creditors filed with the Bankruptcy Court for notice purposes. By order dated October 14, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court formed a statutory committee of unsecured creditors, to which we were appointed to serve, along with OC and The Boeing Company. The Committee is charged with, among other things, maximizing recovery of all unsecured creditor claims, including claims of Kaiser and ODEQ. The Chapter 11 case may impact Kaiser’s ongoing participation in the RI/FS process, as well as the ODEQ consent order and cost sharing agreements. It may also delay implementation of remedial actions for the Upland area, as well as completion of the investigation phase for the Lowland area of the Owned Property and the Scappoose Bay. At this time, we are unable to predict whether and to what extent Kaiser intends to satisfy its environmental remediation obligations and liability to ODEQ. Specifically, we are unable to predict whether Kaiser intends to negotiate a settlement that would discharge its liability for the site, or whether it has sufficient insurance or other assets to cover its anticipated share of any site liability. Kaiser’s shares under cost sharing agreements were being funded by certain insurance policies, which comprised substantially all of Kaiser’s assets. If Kaiser, whether as a result of bankruptcy or otherwise, or OC are unwilling or unable to fulfill their obligations under the cost sharing agreements, or seek to contest or challenge the allocations, or if Kaiser’s insurance policies are unable to fund Kaiser’s share of environmental liability, it could result in additional cost to us greater than the amounts currently estimated and those costs may be material. Macon, GA The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has listed two landfills located on a portion of our Building Products facility in Macon, GA, along with the former Macon Naval Ordnance Plant landfill adjacent to our property, portions of Rocky Creek, and certain tributaries leading to Rocky Creek (collectively, the “Macon Site”) as a Superfund site on the National Priorities List due to the presence of contaminants, most notably polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). In September 2010, we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for a Removal Action with the EPA to investigate PCB contamination in one of the landfills on our property, the Wastewater Treatment Plant Landfill (the “WWTP Landfill,” also known as “Operable Unit 1”). We concluded the investigative phase of the Removal Action for the WWTP Landfill and submitted our final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) to the EPA in 2013. The EPA subsequently approved the EE/CA and issued an Action Memorandum in July 2013 selecting our recommended remedy for the Removal Action. In July 2014, we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action with the EPA for the WWTP Landfill. The EPA approved the Removal Action Work Plan on March 30, 2015 and the removal work commenced in the third quarter of 2015. The Operable Unit 1 response action for the WWTP Landfill is complete and the final report was submitted to the EPA on October 11, 2016. The EPA approved the final report on November 28, 2016, and a Post-Removal Control Plan (the “Plan”) was submitted to the EPA on March 28, 2017. We will implement the Plan once it is approved. That Plan will monitor the effectiveness of the WWTP Landfill response action and our estimate of future liabilities includes these tasks. It is probable that we will incur field investigation, engineering and oversight costs associated with a RI/FS with respect to the remainder of the Superfund site, which includes the other landfill on our property, as well as areas on and adjacent to AWI’s property and Rocky Creek (the “Remaining Site,” also known as “Operable Unit 2”). On September 25, 2015, AWI and six other Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRPs”) received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA under CERCLA inviting AWI and the PRPs to enter into the negotiation of a Settlement Agreement (formerly known as an Administrative Order on Consent) to conduct an RI/FS of Operable Unit 2. We, along with the other PRPs, submitted a good faith offer to the EPA in response to the Special Notice Letter to conduct RI/FS. We have not received a response to our good faith offer and have not yet entered into an Order with the EPA for Operable Unit 2. We have not yet commenced an investigation of this portion of the site. We anticipate that the EPA will require significant investigative work for Operable Unit 2 and that we may ultimately incur costs in remediating any contamination discovered during the RI/FS. The current estimate of future liability at this site includes only our estimated share of the costs of the investigative work that, at this time, we anticipate the EPA will require the PRPs to perform. We are unable to reasonably estimate AWI’s final share of the costs or the total costs associated with the investigation work or any resulting remediation therefrom, although such amounts may be material. Elizabeth City, NC This site is a former cabinet manufacturing facility that was operated by Triangle Pacific Corporation, now known as Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. (“Triangle Pacific”), from 1977 until 1996. The site was formerly owned by the U.S. Navy (“Navy”) and Westinghouse, now CBS Corporation (“CBS”). We assumed ownership of the site when we acquired the stock of Triangle Pacific in 1998. Prior to our acquisition, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources listed the site as a hazardous waste site. In 1997, Triangle Pacific entered into a cost sharing agreement with Westinghouse whereby the parties agreed to share equally in costs associated with investigation and potential remediation. In 2000, Triangle Pacific and CBS entered into an Administrative Order on Consent to conduct an RI/FS with the EPA for the site. In 2007, we and CBS entered into an agreement with the Navy whereby the Navy agreed to pay one third of defined past and future investigative costs up to a certain amount, which has now been exhausted. The EPA approved the RI/FS work plan in August 2011. In January 2014, we submitted the draft Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment reports and conducted supplemental investigative work based upon agency comments to those reports. The EPA has requested a schedule for next steps (e.g. feasibility study) working toward a Proposed Plan and Record Of Decision. If remediation is required the related costs may be material, although we expect these costs to be shared with CBS and the Navy. Summary of Financial Position Liabilities of $5.1 million as of March 31, 2017 and $4.7 million as of December 31, 2016 were recorded for potential environmental liabilities that we consider probable and for which a reasonable estimate of the probable liability could be made. During the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, we recorded reserves for potential environmental liabilities of $0.6 million and $0.7 million, respectively. Where existing data is sufficient to estimate the liability, that estimate has been used; where only a range of probable liabilities is available and no amount within that range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. As assessments and remediation activities progress at each site, these liabilities are reviewed to reflect new information as it becomes available, and adjusted to reflect amounts actually incurred and paid. These liabilities are undiscounted. The estimated liabilities above do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. It is our policy to record insurance recoveries when cash is received. For insurance recoveries that are reimbursements of prior environmental expenditures, the income statement impact is recorded within SG&A expenses, which is where environmental charges are recorded. Insurance recoveries in excess of historical environmental spending would be recorded on the balance sheet as part of Other long-term liabilities and released as future environmental spending occurs. No material amounts were recorded for insurance recoveries as of March 31, 2017 or December 31, 2016. Actual costs to be incurred at identified sites may vary from our estimates. Based on our knowledge of the identified sites, it is not possible to reasonably estimate future costs in excess of amounts already recognized. OTHER CLAIMS We are involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of business, including matters involving our products, intellectual property, relationships with suppliers, relationships with distributors, relationships with competitors, employees and other matters. From time to time, for example, we may be a party to litigation matters that involve product liability, tort liability and other claims under various allegations, including illness due to exposure to certain chemicals used in the workplace; or medical conditions arising from exposure to product ingredients or the presence of trace contaminants. Such allegations may involve multiple defendants and relate to legacy products that we and other defendants purportedly manufactured or sold. We believe that any current claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. For these matters, we also may have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. When applicable and appropriate, we will pursue coverage and recoveries under those policies, but are unable to predict the outcome of those demands. While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not believe that any current claims, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

NOTE 18. LITIGATION AND RELATED MATTERS

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Environmental Compliance

Our manufacturing and research facilities are affected by various federal, state and local requirements relating to the discharge of materials and the protection of the environment. We make expenditures necessary for compliance with applicable environmental requirements at each of our operating facilities. These regulatory requirements continually change, therefore we cannot predict with certainty future expenditures associated with compliance with environmental requirements.

Environmental Sites

Summary

We are actively involved in the investigation, closure and/or remediation of existing or potential environmental contamination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and state Superfund and similar environmental laws at several domestically owned, formerly owned and non-owned locations allegedly resulting from past industrial activity.

In a few cases, we are one of several potentially responsible parties and have agreed to jointly fund the required investigation and remediation, while preserving our defenses to the liability. We may also have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. We are currently pursuing coverage and recoveries under those policies with respect to certain of the sites, including the St. Helens, OR site, the Macon, GA site and the Elizabeth City, NC site, each of which is summarized below. These efforts include two active and independent litigation matters against legacy primary and excess policy insurance carriers for recovery of fees and costs incurred by us in connection with our investigation and remediation activities for such sites. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the timing of any recoveries, whether through settlement or otherwise. We are also unable to predict the extent to which any recoveries might cover our final share of investigation and remediation costs for these sites. Our final share of investigation and remediation costs may exceed any such recoveries, and such amounts net of insurance recoveries may be material. We currently anticipate that we may enter into settlement agreements in 2017 with several, but not all, insurers and obtain partial reimbursement for legacy environmental site expenses.

Estimates of our future liability at the environmental sites are based on evaluations of currently available facts regarding each individual site. We consider factors such as our activities associated with the site, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations and prior company experience in remediating contaminated sites. Although current law imposes joint and several liability on all parties at Superfund sites, our contribution to the remediation of these sites is expected to be limited by the number of other companies potentially liable for site remediation. As a result, our estimated liability reflects only our expected share. In determining the probability of contribution, we consider the solvency of other parties, the site activities of other parties, whether liability is being disputed, the terms of any existing agreements and experience with similar matters, and the effect of our October 2006 Chapter 11 reorganization upon the validity of the claim.

Specific Material Events

St Helens, OR

In August 2010, we entered into a Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (“ODEQ”), along with Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (“Kaiser”), and Owens Corning Sales LLC (“OC”), with respect to our St. Helens, OR facility, which was previously owned by Kaiser and then OC. The Consent Order requires that we and Kaiser complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”) on the portion of the site owned by us (“Owned Property”), which is comprised of Upland and Lowland areas. The Consent Order further requires us, Kaiser and OC to conduct an RI/FS in the In-Water area of the adjacent Scappoose Bay. Costs and responsibilities for investigation, including the current RI/FS, for the Owned Property have been shared with Kaiser pursuant to a cost sharing agreement with Kaiser. Costs and responsibilities for the investigation with respect to the in-water areas that we do not own have been shared with Kaiser and OC pursuant to a cost sharing agreement with Kaiser and OC.

On September 14, 2016, the parties submitted a Feasibility Study to the ODEQ proposing remedial action options for the Upland area. We have participated in the investigation phase for the Lowland area of the Owned Property and the Scappoose Bay and have been working with the ODEQ, Kaiser and OC to finalize the reports to move to the Feasibility Study phase. We have determined that it is probable that remedial action for certain portions of the Lowland area of the Owned Property will be required. The current estimate of our future liability at the site includes any remaining known investigation work required by the Consent Order and the current projected cost of remedial actions in the Upland area. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate any remediation costs that we may ultimately incur with respect to the Lowland portion of the Owned Property or the Scappoose Bay or whether the projected costs for the areas we have included in our current estimate will increase. Additional investigative or remedial action required by the ODEQ could result in additional costs greater than the amounts currently estimated. As discussed above, we are currently unable to predict the outcome or the timing of our insurance recovery proceedings. Accordingly, additional estimated costs for this matter may be incurred without regard for, and prior to, the resolution of our insurance recovery proceedings.

On September 30, 2016, Kaiser filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Case No. 16-31602). AWI, OC and the ODEQ have all been included on the master list of potential creditors filed with the Bankruptcy Court for notice purposes. By order dated October 14, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court formed a statutory committee of unsecured creditors, to which we were appointed to serve, along with OC and The Boeing Company. The Committee is charged with, among other things, maximizing recovery of all unsecured creditor claims, including claims of Kaiser and ODEQ. The Chapter 11 case may impact Kaiser’s ongoing participation in the RI/FS process, as well as the ODEQ consent order and cost sharing agreements. It may also delay implementation of remedial actions for the Upland area, as well as completion of the investigation phase for the Lowland area of the Owned Property and the Scappoose Bay. At this time, we are unable to predict whether and to what extent Kaiser intends to satisfy its environmental remediation obligations and liability to ODEQ. Specifically, we are unable to predict whether Kaiser intends to negotiate a settlement that would discharge its liability for the site, or whether it has sufficient insurance or other assets to cover its anticipated share of any site liability. Kaiser’s shares under cost sharing agreements were being funded by certain insurance policies, which comprised substantially all of Kaiser’s assets. If Kaiser, whether as a result of bankruptcy or otherwise, or OC are unwilling or unable to fulfill their obligations under the cost sharing agreements, or seek to contest or challenge the allocations, or if Kaiser’s insurance policies are unable to fund Kaiser’s share of environmental liability, it could result in additional cost to us greater than the amounts currently estimated and those costs may be material.

Macon, GA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has listed two landfills located on a portion of our Building Products facility in Macon, GA, along with the former Macon Naval Ordnance Plant landfill adjacent to our property, portions of Rocky Creek, and certain tributaries leading to Rocky Creek (collectively, the “Macon Site”) as a Superfund site on the National Priorities List due to the presence of contaminants, most notably polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”).

In September 2010, we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for a Removal Action with the EPA to investigate PCB contamination in one of the landfills on our property, the Wastewater Treatment Plant Landfill (the “WWTP Landfill,” also known as “Operable Unit 1”). We concluded the investigative phase of the Removal Action for the WWTP Landfill and submitted our final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) to the EPA in 2013. The EPA subsequently approved the EE/CA and issued an Action Memorandum in July 2013 selecting our recommended remedy for the Removal Action. In July 2014, we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action with the EPA for the WWTP Landfill. The EPA approved the Removal Action Work Plan on March 30, 2015 and the removal work commenced in the third quarter of 2015. The Operable Unit 1 response action for the WWTP Landfill is complete and the final report was submitted to the EPA on October 11, 2016. The EPA approved the final report on November 28, 2016, and a Post-Removal Control Plan (the “Plan”) was submitted to the EPA on March 28, 2017. We will implement the Plan once it is approved. That Plan will monitor the effectiveness of the WWTP Landfill response action and our estimate of future liabilities includes these tasks.

It is probable that we will incur field investigation, engineering and oversight costs associated with a RI/FS with respect to the remainder of the Superfund site, which includes the other landfill on our property, as well as areas on and adjacent to AWI’s property and Rocky Creek (the “Remaining Site,” also known as “Operable Unit 2”). On September 25, 2015, AWI and six other Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRPs”) received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA under CERCLA inviting AWI and the PRPs to enter into the negotiation of a Settlement Agreement (formerly known as an Administrative Order on Consent) to conduct an RI/FS of Operable Unit 2. We, along with the other PRPs, submitted a good faith offer to the EPA in response to the Special Notice Letter to conduct RI/FS. We have not received a response to our good faith offer and have not yet entered into an Order with the EPA for Operable Unit 2. We have not yet commenced an investigation of this portion of the site. We anticipate that the EPA will require significant investigative work for Operable Unit 2 and that we may ultimately incur costs in remediating any contamination discovered during the RI/FS. The current estimate of future liability at this site includes only our estimated share of the costs of the investigative work that, at this time, we anticipate the EPA will require the PRPs to perform. We are unable to reasonably estimate AWI’s final share of the costs or the total costs associated with the investigation work or any resulting remediation therefrom, although such amounts may be material.

Elizabeth City, NC

This site is a former cabinet manufacturing facility that was operated by Triangle Pacific Corporation, now known as Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. (“Triangle Pacific”), from 1977 until 1996. The site was formerly owned by the U.S. Navy (“Navy”) and Westinghouse, now CBS Corporation (“CBS”). We assumed ownership of the site when we acquired the stock of Triangle Pacific in 1998. Prior to our acquisition, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources listed the site as a hazardous waste site. In 1997, Triangle Pacific entered into a cost sharing agreement with Westinghouse whereby the parties agreed to share equally in costs associated with investigation and potential remediation. In 2000, Triangle Pacific and CBS entered into an Administrative Order on Consent to conduct an RI/FS with the EPA for the site. In 2007, we and CBS entered into an agreement with the Navy whereby the Navy agreed to pay one third of defined past and future investigative costs up to a certain amount, which has now been exhausted. The EPA approved the RI/FS work plan in August 2011. In January 2014, we submitted the draft Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment reports and conducted supplemental investigative work based upon agency comments to those reports. The EPA has requested a schedule for next steps (e.g. feasibility study) working toward a Proposed Plan and Record Of Decision. If remediation is required the related costs may be material, although we expect these costs to be shared with CBS and the Navy.

Summary of Financial Position

Liabilities of $5.1 million as of March 31, 2017 and $4.7 million as of December 31, 2016 were recorded for potential environmental liabilities that we consider probable and for which a reasonable estimate of the probable liability could be made. During the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, we recorded reserves for potential environmental liabilities of $0.6 million and $0.7 million, respectively. Where existing data is sufficient to estimate the liability, that estimate has been used; where only a range of probable liabilities is available and no amount within that range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. As assessments and remediation activities progress at each site, these liabilities are reviewed to reflect new information as it becomes available, and adjusted to reflect amounts actually incurred and paid. These liabilities are undiscounted.

The estimated liabilities above do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. It is our policy to record insurance recoveries when cash is received. For insurance recoveries that are reimbursements of prior environmental expenditures, the income statement impact is recorded within SG&A expenses, which is where environmental charges are recorded. Insurance recoveries in excess of historical environmental spending would be recorded on the balance sheet as part of Other long-term liabilities and released as future environmental spending occurs. No material amounts were recorded for insurance recoveries as of March 31, 2017 or December 31, 2016.

Actual costs to be incurred at identified sites may vary from our estimates. Based on our knowledge of the identified sites, it is not possible to reasonably estimate future costs in excess of amounts already recognized.

OTHER CLAIMS

We are involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of business, including matters involving our products, intellectual property, relationships with suppliers, relationships with distributors, relationships with competitors, employees and other matters. From time to time, for example, we may be a party to litigation matters that involve product liability, tort liability and other claims under various allegations, including illness due to exposure to certain chemicals used in the workplace; or medical conditions arising from exposure to product ingredients or the presence of trace contaminants. Such allegations may involve multiple defendants and relate to legacy products that we and other defendants purportedly manufactured or sold. We believe that any current claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. For these matters, we also may have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. When applicable and appropriate, we will pursue coverage and recoveries under those policies, but are unable to predict the outcome of those demands. While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not believe that any current claims, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.